For April 27, 2006
From the newsroom of Automotive News
Click on a headline to open a new browser window and read the story.


White House moves to change car CAFE

Harry Stoffer



WASHINGTON -- Reacting to public uproar over gasoline prices, the Bush administration took steps Thursday to change passenger car fuel economy standards for the first time in more than 20 years.

The administration said it wants to make the same kinds of changes in the standards for cars that it made for light trucks in late March. Those changes included for the first time setting different fuel economy targets for vehicles of different sizes and raising the overall fuel-saving requirements for manufacturers by about 10 percent over the 2008-11 model years.

The earliest that the changes for cars could take effect would be the 2009 model year. Cars have been required to average 27.5 mpg since the mid-1980s. Federal law in 1975 established the corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE, and the industry has wrestled with it ever since.

The unusual administration move was part of a seeming panic among politicians to demonstrate to consumers -- and voters -- that they are doing something about high gasoline prices.

The fuel economy plan for cars was spelled out for reporters in a hastily called telephone news conference late Thursday.

The officials said they could speak only if they were not identified -- apparently so they would not upstage remarks on the subject made earlier by President Bush.

The plan for cars would unfold in a series of steps.

First, Congress would have to enact a law giving the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration authority to set something other than a single standard for cars.

Then the agency would need to gather product information from automakers, publish a notice of rule-making and accept comments on the proposal.

Finally, automakers would have to be given at least 18 months lead time before any changes would take effect.

The officials who spoke Thursday said the administration was trying to take advantage of the surge in congressional interest in energy issues to get the needed legislation enacted.

The point of setting different fuel economy targets for vehicles of different sizes is to discourage automakers from downsizing models to comply, thereby making vehicles less safe. The administration's reforms set tougher targets for smaller vehicles. Size is determined by the area bounded by the four wheels.

Some critics of the new truck standards warn, however, that automakers may decide to make some vehicles larger so that they face easier targets -- thereby negating hoped-for fuel savings.

Light trucks are expected to average about 24 mpg by 2011.

The standard for 2006 is 21.6 mpg.

 

I'd rather see some sort of government credits going per car sold that doesn't require traditional fuel to run at all - be in hydrogen, E85, or whatever.

 

This may give a small advantage to RWD cars. Since RWD cars can put the engine mostly behind the front axle, they tend to have a longer wheelbase for the same size car. For the SUVs, CAFE category is based on the product of wheelbase+track.

Push those wheels to the corners!

The old Camaro would've been way under the limits

 

I agree with Threxx, I would much rather them put more research and money into other fuel sources. Plus extra money into helping out the Ethanol industry so not only will there be enough Ethanol for regular E10 gasoline, but also plenty for E85.

 

Don't you guys understand? None of this is actually about doing the right thing. It's about appearing that you're doing something.

It's all a bunchacrap.

 

Z284ever hit it right on the head.
Political BS

 

Of course it is. CAFE is all about having your cake and eating it too, free lunches, and making the other guy pay. Any thoughtful analysis will conclude that consumption taxes would be a much more efficient way to reduce fuel consumption.

But it's gonna happen, and the size-based CAFE gives some room to maneuver and gives hope that our favorite cars will still happen.

So it's time to start thinking about gaming the system.

Push those wheels to the corners!

 

Political posturing at its best!

 

Frankly, I'm pretty sure that the $100 gasoline rebate checks that have been discussed over the past two days would solve all of my problems

I'm with Threxx - let's stop dicking around with minimal increases in fuel economy for gasoline vehicles, and start staking out some serious ground in alternative energy.

 

I hope E85 cars get some kind of break, probably not though since they run on regular gas too.

I'd rather seen things like converting NYC cabs to E85. 50% of the cars in NYC seem to be cabs driving 24/7/365 Just imagine if they were all on E85 instead of gas. Seems like an easy way to get E85 used in NY. Small area, lots of cars.

 

I think the current problems with switching from MTBE to 10% ethanol has knocked the shine off of E85, at least in the short term.

 

AH, but there also lies the answer......instead of small incremental rebates to make cars E85 compliant......why not attack the source of the real hurdle to getting this in the mainstream?

Build more ethanol refineries.....hell, build more new oil refineries for crying out loud....

Get more land back into crop production (instead of subsidies NOT to plant)....there's a TON of idle land out there....

More family farms will survive and some might even be resurected....

Land being used has a higher value, and therefore more property taxes available to local governments....and one less reason for urban sprawl, due to buying up "cheap" land versus rebuilding decaying city core areas....

E85 is better for the environment....

Companies will spring up doing E85 conversions...a whole industry can be envisioned...

I also believe that fuel prices will be more stable with ethanol...if done right.

These are just a few reasons to attack the real problem instead of political tinkering BS that just make politicians look better and the tree huggers happy.

Bottom line is energy independance....personally, I'd be OK with with paying $3/gal. IF i knew it didn't come from the ME.

 

Agreed. $5 Billion dollars would probably fund a couple of Ethanol plants. The Government should help build some facilities/research. Continue Taxing Oil, while DO NOT TAX E85. That would be a Tax benefit for us all right there... Although, eventually when people move from Gas to E85 they would have to get that Tax money back someday.

We have stockpiles and stockpiles of corn that sits just rotting, or exported. Why not keep it here and use it! I'm all for E85 and it could be a reality. But our politicians are too in bed with Big Oil. And I'm not talking about just Bush; ALL OF THEM!

 

Exactly!

And how about every county not having it's own "designer blend" of gas....so distribution of gas wouldn't be such a freakin' nightmare in this country. You know, gas that can go to Springfield or Rockford can't go to Chicago. Stupid!

BTW, guess who's going to invest Billions of dollars to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico? China. That's who, just afew miles away from Florida, off the Cuban coast.

On a different note, the problem I see with $75 per barrel oil is it's not real. It's actually $40-$50 per barrel oil pumped up by speculaters. Because if $75 per barrel were a "real" and stable price, everything would change. Shale oil, for example, would not only be viable - but very profitable. Synthesizing diesel from millions of tons of wasted coal dust would be a downright bargain. Yeah, and about that diesel, how about the EPA either relaxes specific emission standards slightly to allow modern, clean, diesel cars in the US.....or mandates low sulpher diesel fuels to allow off the shelf diesels to comply.


There is so much that could be done to improve our predicament....SO MUCH......but instead, every politician I hear talk on this subject, is just an uninformed talking head.....looking to score political points. They REALLY **** me off.

 

Add to this that Chevron just posted 50% gain in profits for last quarter (4 Billion) and it seems that something is not right.

I too can't stand these "analysts" that predict oil prices, or anything for that matter. It just gives the oil companies a free ticket to jack up the prices. I can't stand our media, they are so damn irresponsible.